Transportation for America Fiscal Cliff Report

THE END OF
THE ROAD?
THE END OF
THE ROAD?
THE LOOMING
FISCAL DISASTER
FOR TRANSPORTATION
About this report
For Transportation for America, this report was written
by Sarah Kline and edited by James Corless and David
Goldberg with layout and design by Stephen Lee Davis.
Data tables prepared by Michelle Ernst.
This report can be viewed and downloaded online, with
all applicable data tables, on our website at
t4america.org/maps-tools
WHO WE ARE
Transportation for America is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders from communities
across the country, united to ensure that states and the federal government step up to invest in
smart, homegrown, locally-driven transportation solutions. These are the investments that hold the key to
our future economic prosperity.
About us
Transportation for America
1707 L Street, N.W. Ste. 250
Washington, DC 20036
202-955-5543
t4america.org
@t4america on Twitter
/transportationforamerica on Facebook
America is at a crucial decision point for
transportation. The nation’s transportation trust
fund is facing a crisis. The gasoline tax that has
sustained the federal transportation program
since the middle of the last century is no longer
keeping up with investment needs. Starting this
fall, every dollar of gas tax revenues collected will
be needed to cover the federal share of projects
already promised to states, regions, and transit
agencies, according to the Congressional Budget
Offce.
Unless Congress adds new revenue to the trust
fund, the federal government will be unable to
commit to funding new projects, depriving states
and localities of resources critical to maintaining
and improving the infrastructure that makes our
economy possible. At the same time, Congress
has an opportunity to reform and reinvigorate one
of our most important infrastructure programs in
order to boost today’s economy and ensure future
prosperity. The federal law that sets national
transportation policy and investment levels —
known as MAP-21 — expires on October 1, 2014.
As Congress reconsiders this vital program,
business and elected leaders across the country
are calling on their representatives not only to
save the transportation trust fund, but also to
refocus federal transportation policy on locally-
driven, innovative transportation solutions.
This report examines the impact of Congressional
inaction on the transportation needs of each
state and metropolitan area, a potential loss
of nearly $47 billion that would jeopardize the
nation’s future economic growth. It demonstrates
why Congress must act — and soon — to avoid
depriving states and communities of the critical
resources needed to provide the 21st century
transportation networks that allow people to
thrive and businesses to succeed.
THE END OF THE ROAD?
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION
T4AMERICA
THE END OF THE ROAD?
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION
Introduction
Cities, towns, and suburbs across the country are
working hard to make sure that they have the
transportation networks they need to keep their
local economies strong. They know they need to
repair roads and bridges to handle 21st century
demands. They are planning to build new transit
lines to bring workers to jobs. They want to fix
bottlenecks that slow freight shipments through
our ports, rail lines and roadways. In short, they
know they have to take the steps needed to keep
their economies strong. When they are successful,
the entire nation benefits, as local economies
are the foundation of America’s strength and
vitality.
Throughout our history, the federal
government has been a partner in
these efforts. In some cases the
federal government has been
the leader, such as President
Lincoln’s efforts to build the
Transcontinental Railroad
during the Civil War and
President Eisenhower’s
work on the Interstate Highway System during the
1950s. In many cases, though, the federal govern-
ment has been a supportive partner as states have
designed and built the infrastructure they need to
address the challenges of moving people to work
and goods to market.
Today, this partnership is on the brink of collapse.
The Highway Trust Fund, the federal govern-
ment’s primary source of support for transporta-
tion projects, is facing insolvency. If Congress does
not act to shore up the trust fund, the federal sup-
port that states and regions have been counting on
for next year’s projects simply will not be there.
This report examines the impact of Congressio-
nal inaction on the transportation needs of states
and metropolitan areas: a potential loss of $46.8
billion to state and local governments, which
would jeopardize the nation’s future economic
growth. The report concludes that Congress must
not abandon its state and local partners at this
critical moment.
Instead, the nation must seize the opportunity
to enact a 21st century investment plan for
transportation and make the policy reforms
needed to support strong local economies
and reward smart, locally driven trans-
portation innovations.
What is the Highway Trust
Fund and why does it
matter?
The Highway Trust Fund
is the nation’s primary
source of transporta-
tion funding, sustained
by revenues from taxes on motor fuels and other
transportation-related taxes. The 18.4-cent per
gallon tax on gasoline is the largest revenue source
for the trust fund. Trustfund revenues are then
provided to states, regions, and transit agencies by
the U.S. Department of Transportation according
to a set of distribution formulas enacted by Con-
gress. Some of the funding is narrowly targeted
to specific transportation needs, such as highway
safety or maintenance of the National Highway
System, while other funding can be used for a wide
variety of transportation projects.
Until recently, the Highway Trust Fund had for
decades provided stable and growing funding for
states and localities. In 1998, Congress decreed
Unless Congress adds new revenue to the trust fund, the federal government will be unable to
commit to funding new projects, depriving states and localities of resources critical to maintaining
and improving the infrastructure that makes our economy possible.
2
T4AMERICA
THE END OF THE ROAD?
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION
that the revenues deposited in the trust fund
could only be used for transportation. They
cannot be used to pay for other government
programs. This so-called “firewall” between the
Highway Trust Fund and the rest of the federal
budget has enabled the federal government to
make multi-year commitments of funding to
states and local governments without fear that
the money would be diverted in some future
year for other priorities. The certainty that
this mechanism provided to states and regions
allowed them to plan multi-year transportation
investments.
States and regions depend upon these commit-
ments to address their transportation needs. As
Table 1 shows (at the end of this report), federal
funds make up a significant portion of state
transportation budgets. Should these funds not
materialize in any given year, states would find
themselves trying to plug a large hole in their
budgets — or worse, deferring needed projects,
perhaps indefinitely. Local leaders looking for a
strong federal partner to help them achieve their
regional transportation goals would be
turned away.
The current crisis
Every few years, Congress authorizes — and the
President signs into law - the amount of revenue
from the Highway Trust Fund that may be expend-
ed each year by the Department of Transportation.
Until 2012, generally speaking, each multi-year
authorization was larger than the last as gas tax rev-
enues grew. But that changed in 2012, as Congress
faced a new dilemma: how to pass a transportation
bill when gas tax revenues had fallen behind.
The problem actually started with the previous
transportation bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (“SAFETEA-LU”), passed in 2005. As Con-
gress was negotiating funding levels for that bill,
gas tax revenues flowing into the Highway Trust
Fund (plus existing balances) were projected to be
high enough to support an increase in the amount
of authorized expenditures through 2009. Problems
could be seen on the horizon as even then it was
clear that the trust fund would be unable to sup-
port continued increases after 2010, but Congress
decided to leave that problem for another day. Fed-
eral lawmakers authorized increased funding levels
in SAFETEA-LU, figuring they had another few
years to figure out how to shore up the trust fund
before authorizing the next set of expenditures for
2010 and beyond.
At the same time, however, changes were taking
place across America that suppressed gasoline sales,
and therefore gas tax receipts, even as construction
costs increased:
For one, the number of miles being driven •
per person in the United States stopped grow-
ing over the last decade and appears to be in
decline.
When the economic downturn hit in 2008, •
driving took an even greater hit as the high
unemployment rate led many people to reduce
their driving even more.
If Congress does not act, states, transit agencies and local govern-
ments will fnd themselves facing large holes in their transporta-
tion budgets in the coming fscal year, unable to make the invest-
ments they need to maintain their infrastructure and prepare for
the future.
C
C

p
h
o
t
o

b
y

I
a
n

A
g
r
i
m
i
s
h
t
t
p
s
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
f
i
c
k
r
.
c
o
m
/
p
h
o
t
o
s
/
i
a
n
a
g
r
i
m
i
s
/
4
0
4
3
5
0
7
4
4
3
3
T4AMERICA
THE END OF THE ROAD?
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION
TENNESSEE STOPS WORK ON NEW PROJECTS
Because of uncertainty about future federal funding, the Tennessee Department of Transportation has halted
engineering on new projects. TDOT Commissioner John Schroer reports that with a loss of federal dollars, the
department would need to pare back its plan to work “exclusively on the maintenance of our existing pavement and
bridges rather than new projects.” Limited funding could jeopardize projects that many regional leaders have planned
to limit congestion and maintain quality of life as population booms.
ILLINOIS’ S SIX-YEAR PLAN THREATENED
The governor recently announced a six-year transportation plan to complete dozens of key projects, including the
Englewood Flyover freight and passenger rail project, bridge replacements along the Stevenson Expressway, repaving
and repair on I-74 in Decatur and reconstruction of Rte. 2 in Rockford. But because the plan anticipates using $6.99
billion in federal funding to match $1.16 billion in state funding and $450 million in local funding, projects may not
make it off the drawing board without new funding.
ARKANSAS BEARS UP UNDER BAD BRIDGES, NEEDED MAINTENANCE
Ten bridge replacement, road repair and highway expansion projects set to go forward this summer have been pulled
by the Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department because of uncertainty about federal reimbursement.
Arkansas has nearly 900 structurally defcient bridges that carry a total of more than 1.5 million vehicles a day.
At the same time, vehicles are becoming more •
efficient, traveling more miles on fewer gallons
of gasoline.
Revenues into the Highway Trust Fund began •
to fall short of projections. By 2008, there was
already a gap between the revenues coming
into the trust fund, and the expenditures that
had been authorized by Congress in
SAFETEA-LU.
Congress addressed this shortfall by plugging the
hole with money from the general fund — that is,
taxes and fees collected by the federal government
that are not specifically directed to any particular
program. Lawmakers transferred $8 billion in gen-
eral funds into the Highway Trust Fund in 2008.
But the problem continued. So in 2009, Congress
transferred another $7 billion into the trust fund.
In 2010, another $19.5 billion. The 2012 authori-
zation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (“MAP-21”), continued SAFETEA-LU’s
funding levels and filled the gap between those
levels and the actual revenues coming into the
Highway Trust Fund with a general fund transfer
of $18.8 billion.
MAP-21 expires on September 30, 2014. Congress
has not taken steps to address the shortfall in High-
way Trust Fund revenues beyond that date. The
situation is now dire. Without action by Con-
gress, federal support for new transportation
projects could drop to zero this fall.
To understand why, it is important to understand
that the federal transportation programs are “reim-
bursable” programs. USDOT tells states, regions,
and transit agencies each year what federal funding
amount they can expect from that year’s congres-
sional authorization. Then, the states, regions, and
transit agencies undertake transportation projects
and pay for project costs as they occur — some-
times over multiple years. USDOT reimburses
them for these expenditures as they are made.
4
T4AMERICA
THE END OF THE ROAD?
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION
We need an investment plan for the
21st century
Our nation faces serious infrastructure challenges.
Freight bottlenecks slow the movement of goods
upon which our economy depends. Bridges, roads,
transit systems and railways are in need of repair,
while at the same time, America’s growing and
increasingly diverse population requires more in-
novative mobility options than ever before.
To address these challenges, states and local com-
munities are raising their own revenues through
legislative action and ballot measures. Last year,
73 percent of local transportation ballot measures
passed, and 10 states raised revenue for trans-
portation, according to data from the Center for
Transportation Excellence. Even with these efforts,
states and localities cannot address the full range of
transportation needs on their own.
Over the last decade, states and local governments
have provided just over half of the funding for
transportation projects; the federal government
provided the rest.
To shore up the trust fund and preserve this part-
nership, Congress could choose from a range of
options — increasing the gas tax and indexing it to
inflation, enacting a sales tax on gasoline, or impos-
ing a per-barrel oil fee, as examples.
With the trust fund on a sound footing and a fresh
focus on innovation and economic return, state and
local leaders will have a green light to reach for
economic opportunity for all. Congress must act —
and soon — to prevent that light from turning
red.
In other words, USDOT commits each year to
providing a certain amount of funding to states,
regions, and transit agencies, but does not actually
give them the cash upfront, instead reimbursing
them over time as needed.
What does that mean for the Highway Trust Fund?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, all
of the gas tax revenues that are expected to come
into the Highway Trust Fund in the next fiscal year
will be needed to pay for commitments USDOT
has already made to states, regions, and transit
agencies. Without new revenues being added to the
trust fund, USDOT will not be able to make any
new commitments of funding for transportation in
the coming fiscal year.
As discussed above, communities have developed
multi-year transportation plans that count on
federal funding being available in the future. Local
leaders are requesting important changes in the
next transportation bill to the way federal funding
is allocated so that they can access needed support
for locally developed projects. If nothing is done,
these plans and projects would be stopped in their
tracks, with real — and likely lasting — effects on
the nation’s economy.
How much do states, regions, and local transit
agencies stand to lose? Under the assumption that
federal funding in fiscal year 2015 would have been
the same as it was in fiscal year 2014 (a conserva-
tive assumption, given that annual transportation
funding levels generally increase slightly from year
to year), communities across America can expect
to see a $46.8 billion hole in their transporta-
tion budget for projects that would otherwise have
begun next year. Table 2 (at the end of this report)
shows how that number breaks down among states;
Table 3 (at the end of this report) shows the break-
down among metropolitan areas.
5

Transportation ballot measures pass at twice
the rate of all other ballot measures.
T4AMERICA
THE END OF THE ROAD?
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION
Recommendations
After conversations with business, civic and elected leaders in communities throughout the country,
Transportation for America has developed these recommendations for putting the federal transportation
program, and the nation, on a sound footing:
Congress should provide an additional $30 billion per year — from a stable, dedicated revenue source •
— to support all modes of surface transportation. This funding should be used both for the programs
that repair and preserve our aging infrastructure, as well as for new programs that support locally
driven projects that spur economic growth. (For more details, see Transportation for America’s revenue
proposal at t4america.org/our-vision/investment)
The transportation law that succeeds MAP-21 should focus on programs and policies that spur local •
initiative and innovation through competition and incentives. Greater local access to federal funding,
combined with policies to reward good performance, will help to ensure that the federal transportation
program provides a strong return on investment for taxpayers. (For more details, see Transportation for
America’s policy platform at t4america.org/policies)
6
T4AMERICA
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION — DATA
Bridge out ahead
Boise, Idaho // Broadway Bridge
Broadway Bridge in downtown Boise has the lowest structural rating of
any bridge in the state. On game days at Boise State University, thousands
of people crowd the narrow 4-foot sidewalks to cross the critical choke
point for traffc in the area. Given its degraded condition, the bridge could
require weight restrictions or closure at any time. The Broadway Bridge
replacement, scheduled for 2015, is one of few new construction projects in a
state plan dedicated almost entirely to maintaining existing roads. The Idaho
Transportation Department is partnering with the city of Boise on the design
to ensure the new bridge serves the needs of city residents and will enhance
the neighborhood. Sidewalks will be expanded to 10 feet and bicycle lanes will
be added on the bridge and adjoining sections of Broadway Avenue; and there will be new connections to the Greenbelt,
a regional recreational trail that passes under the bridge. The total project cost is pegged at $11.2 million, and the federal
share of $10.4 million is at risk.
Still waiting on the bus
Columbus, Ohio // Expanded and upgraded bus service
Columbus, OH, home to a major university and Ohio’s state government, is a
growing region with a projected 22 percent growth in transit ridership this
decade. To accommodate demand, the Central Ohio Transit Authority plans
to add 29 new buses to its feet in 2015, replacing some of its dilapidated
buses and adding 12 buses to the peak-time feet. New buses are critical
to get residents across the region to work. Residents in the region support
transit service through a voter-approved local sales tax and the agency is using
primarily local funds to rehab a garage to service the new buses, but the agency
plans for federal matching funds to purchase new buses. In addition to adding
service on existing routes, COTA is planning the region’s frst bus rapid transit corridor on Cleveland Avenue.
A top priority back on the shelf
Quad Cities, Illinois // I-74 bridge project
The I-74 bridges connecting Iowa and Illinois carry nearly half the traffc each
day between the cities of this bi-state region where one of fve workers crosses
the river to go to work. The narrow, obsolete bridges date back to 1935 and
were never meant to be part of an interstate highway system. This stretch of
road sees more than three times as many crashes as comparable corridors and
increased traffc on the bridge has created a critical bottleneck that also affects
freight passing through the middle of the country on the national freight net-
work. Replacing the I-74 bridges have been a top priority for regional leaders
for the last two decades. When Illinois and Iowa DOTs released a construction
plan for coming years including more than $800 million programmed for the
central bridge span, The Quad City Times editorialized that “The Quad-Cities’ biggest public construction project in his-
tory seems to suddenly move from planning to action.” Yet collapsing federal funding would threaten that progress. Illinois’
improvements on adjoining streets have begun and Iowa is scheduled to begin construction next year. Beyond just next year,
though, the long-term funding uncertainty created by the insolvent trust fund jeopardizes the progress of the entire corridor
project, which will depend on reliable federal contributions.
PROJECTS LIKE THESE COULD BE THREATENED
7
T4AMERICA
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION — DATA
State Federal Share
Alabama 67.5%
Alaska 93.3%
Arizona 49.9%
Arkansas 63.0%
California 48.1%
Colorado 52.3%
Connecticut 71.3%
Delaware 42.5%
District of Columbia 52.1%
Florida 39.3%
Georgia 60.4%
Hawaii 70.5%
Idaho 68.0%
Illinois 41.6%
Indiana 55.2%
Iowa 58.8%
Kansas 48.4%
Kentucky 44.7%
Louisiana 50.4%
Maine 56.4%
Maryland 49.4%
Massachusetts 38.0%
Michigan 42.3%
Minnesota 60.9%
Mississippi 64.8%
Missouri 63.2%
Montana 88.0%
Nebraska 48.2%
Nevada 52.9%
New Hampshire 64.7%
New Jersey 35.0%
New Mexico 71.7%
New York 44.1%
North Carolina 48.3%
North Dakota 77.9%
State Federal Share
Ohio 59.0%
Oklahoma 61.6%
Oregon 54.5%
Pennsylvania 47.4%
Rhode Island 98.1%
South Carolina 79.5%
South Dakota 72.0%
Tennessee 62.9%
Texas 43.8%
Utah 34.6%
Vermont 84.2%
Virginia 58.6%
Washington 36.2%
West Virginia 60.8%
Wisconsin 54.4%
Wyoming 72.7%
Table 1: Federal dollars as a percentage of state (capital) transportation budgets
(2001-2012)
Notes: Compares federal highway funding provided to states
with state capital outlays for highways, and federal transit capital
funding provided to states and urbanized areas with transit capi-
tal expenditures.
Sources:
Highway Receipts:
FHWA: Highway Statistics Series 2001-2012, Table SF-1, “Rev-
enues Used for Highways by States” and SF-2, “Disbursements by
States for Highways”
Transit Funds Applied:
FTA: “National Transit Database TS1.3 - Capital Funding Time-
Series, 2001 to 2012.”
8
T4AMERICA
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION — DATA
State Total ($)
Alabama 795,940,522
Alaska 530,948,095
Arizona 825,732,143
Arkansas 537,519,402
California 4,874,210,701
Colorado 636,443,044
Connecticut 654,278,090
Delaware 193,071,689
District of Columbia 300,280,023
Florida 2,210,614,868
Georgia 1,439,920,626
Hawaii 210,909,824
Idaho 307,943,173
Illinois 1,917,564,166
Indiana 1,036,206,363
Iowa 526,271,553
Kansas 406,157,492
Kentucky 696,759,307
Louisiana 748,956,978
Maine 212,291,022
Maryland 823,464,184
Massachusetts 956,611,330
Michigan 1,166,560,552
Minnesota 739,788,429
Mississippi 498,547,291
Missouri 1,017,454,027
Montana 421,688,246
Nebraska 304,996,749
Nevada 409,378,648
New Hampshire 181,282,406
New Jersey 1,570,130,769
New Mexico 405,437,832
New York 2,999,147,247
North Carolina 1,135,237,623
North Dakota 259,623,174
Ohio 1,479,609,333
Oklahoma 664,190,048
State Total ($)
Oregon 585,919,232
Pennsylvania 1,979,652,555
Rhode Island 231,998,035
South Carolina 703,867,293
South Dakota 293,245,716
Tennessee 912,390,805
Texas 3,787,141,049
Utah 406,651,187
Vermont 208,123,748
Virginia 1,196,356,996
Washington 907,772,105
West Virginia 456,828,352
Wisconsin 826,022,133
Wyoming 262,121,298
Table 2: How much funding states stand to lose in FY 2015
Federal highway and transit funding
Note: This table shows the contract authority that would be
available if the total authorization in FY2015 remained at the
FY2014 level, with no changes in distribution formulas.
Sources: FHWA: Revised Apportionment of Federal-aid Highway
Funds for FY 2014, Table 1 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/
directives/notices/n4510770.cfm);
FTA: FTA Allocations for Formula and Discretionary Programs by
State FY 1998-2014 (Excel) (http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/
FTA_Apportionments_for_Formula_and_Discretionary_Pro-
grams_by_State_FY_1998-2014.xls)
9
T4AMERICA
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION — DATA
State Urbanized Area Total ($)
AK Anchorage 56,819,364
AL Birmingham 25,319,929
AL Huntsville 9,177,857
AL Mobile 11,100,862
AL Montgomery 8,998,969
AR Little Rock 16,478,311
AR-MO Fayetteville-Springdale-
Rogers
10,193,489
AZ Phoenix-Mesa 115,459,367
AZ Tucson 28,994,739
CA Antioch 14,616,612
CA Bakersfeld 15,098,548
CA Concord 56,467,224
CA Fresno 21,190,815
CA Indio-Cathedral City 9,471,196
CA Lancaster-Palmdale 19,329,048
CA Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Anaheim
569,165,114
CA Mission Viejo-Lake Forest-
San Clemente
22,108,474
CA Modesto 10,187,086
CA Murrieta-Temecula-Meni-
fee
10,767,276
CA Oxnard 18,173,696
CA Riverside-San Bernardino 70,050,262
CA Sacramento 59,451,807
CA San Diego 139,495,771
CA San Francisco-Oakland 292,964,961
CA San Jose 85,120,892
CA Santa Clarita 10,054,084
CA Santa Rosa 8,799,456
CA Stockton 16,062,217
CA Thousand Oaks 8,553,912
CA Victorville-Hesperia 8,171,158
CA Visalia 7,196,371
CO Colorado Springs 16,153,127
CO Denver-Aurora 96,447,083
CO Fort Collins 7,324,846
CT Hartford 40,372,423
CT New Haven 32,957,455
CT-NY Bridgeport-Stamford 94,492,510
Table 3: How much funding urbanized areas stand to lose in FY 2015
Federal highway and transit funding — urbanized areas over 200,000 in population
State Urbanized Area Total ($)
CT-RI Norwich-New London 9,009,723
DC-MD-
VA
Washington, DC 424,309,910
FL Bonita Springs 8,775,634
FL Cape Coral 14,333,101
FL Jacksonville 31,570,166
FL Kissimmee 10,031,204
FL Lakeland 6,942,984
FL Miami 238,630,565
FL Orlando 46,712,576
FL Palm Bay-Melbourne 13,164,181
FL Palm Coast-Daytona
Beach-Port Orange
10,613,170
FL Port St. Lucie 9,225,979
FL Sarasota-Bradenton
(Manatee County)
18,730,571
FL Tallahassee 7,138,119
FL Tampa-St. Petersburg 70,231,526
FL Winter Haven 5,468,493
FL-AL Pensacola 8,754,287
GA Atlanta 203,500,127
GA Columbus, GA 7,725,933
GA Savannah 9,029,164
GA-SC Augusta-Richmond County 10,767,082
HI Honolulu 47,183,465
IA Des Moines 17,508,568
IA-IL Davenport 9,900,256
ID Boise City 12,769,041
IL Peoria 7,813,821
IL Rockford 7,964,631
IL-IN Chicago 612,582,940
IL-WI Round Lake Beach-McHen-
ry-Grayslake
13,509,735
IN Fort Wayne 9,888,997
IN Indianapolis 46,513,085
IN-KY Evansville 7,822,339
IN-MI South Bend 12,329,071
KS Wichita 14,627,524
KY Lexington-Fayette 11,539,473
KY-IN Louisville/Jefferson County 36,376,021
10
T4AMERICA
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION — DATA
State Urbanized Area Total ($)
LA Baton Rouge 18,943,791
LA Lafayette 8,087,491
LA New Orleans 39,641,306
LA Shreveport 10,639,961
MA Barnstable Town 11,776,798
MA-CT Springfeld 22,755,744
MA-CT Worcester 18,803,948
MA-NH-
RI
Boston 335,082,492
MD Aberdeen-Bel Air South-Bel
Air North
6,481,740
MD Baltimore 149,349,072
ME Portland 21,099,593
MI Ann Arbor 11,805,898
MI Detroit 103,607,766
MI Flint 12,969,343
MI Grand Rapids 18,362,052
MI Kalamazoo 6,215,545
MI Lansing 11,408,005
MN-WI Minneapolis-St. Paul 113,800,764
MO Springfeld 9,116,324
MO-IL St. Louis 99,604,975
MO-KS Kansas City 52,205,823
MS Gulfport 7,657,399
MS Jackson 11,250,727
NC Asheville 6,922,934
NC Concord, NC 5,400,539
NC Durham 13,573,188
NC Fayetteville 8,031,351
NC Greensboro 10,416,480
NC Hickory 5,309,651
NC Raleigh 25,749,807
NC Wilmington 6,257,729
NC Winston-Salem 10,767,385
NC-SC Charlotte 39,646,189
NE Lincoln 9,166,606
NE-IA Omaha 25,438,848
NH-MA Nashua 5,706,220
NJ Atlantic City 20,381,900
NJ Trenton 26,025,244
NM Albuquerque 42,678,603
NV Las Vegas-Henderson 71,953,624
NV-CA Reno 13,538,382
State Urbanized Area Total ($)
NY Albany-Schenectady 19,904,171
NY Buffalo 32,983,279
NY Rochester 21,147,339
NY Syracuse 12,573,475
NY-NJ Poughkeepsie-Newburgh 32,521,807
NY-NJ-CT New York-Newark 1,916,894,759
OH Akron 17,100,930
OH Canton 8,639,819
OH Cleveland 70,880,738
OH Columbus 39,274,751
OH Dayton 38,688,615
OH-KY-IN Cincinnati 48,577,720
OH-MI Toledo 15,224,689
OH-PA Youngstown 10,907,397
OK Oklahoma City 30,428,372
OK Tulsa 23,607,908
OR Eugene 11,335,624
OR Salem 10,977,659
OR-WA Portland, OR 95,096,643
PA Harrisburg 17,075,070
PA Lancaster 23,490,845
PA Pittsburgh 83,825,043
PA Reading 8,841,739
PA Scranton 11,761,206
PA York 7,568,950
PA-NJ Allentown 21,427,657
PA-NJ-
DE-MD
Philadelphia 383,895,301
RI-MA Providence 69,972,775
SC Charleston-
North Charleston
17,933,620
SC Columbia 16,372,586
SC Greenville 11,875,636
SC-NC Myrtle Beach-Socastee 6,445,739
TN Knoxville 17,053,646
TN Nashville-Davidson 43,550,696
TN-GA Chattanooga 11,607,017
TN-MS-
AR
Memphis 34,459,208
TX Austin 57,008,519
TX Brownsville 6,996,892
TX Conroe-The Woodlands 8,632,892
TX Corpus Christi 11,937,198
11
T4AMERICA
THE LOOMING FISCAL DISASTER FOR TRANSPORTATION — DATA
State Urbanized Area Total ($)
TX Dallas-Fort Worth-
Arlington
202,693,279
TX Denton-Lewisville 13,293,955
TX Houston 184,677,140
TX Killeen 6,765,375
TX Laredo 8,301,090
TX Lubbock 8,210,135
TX McAllen 20,775,048
TX San Antonio 67,631,910
TX-NM El Paso 31,682,150
UT Ogden-Layton 22,039,139
UT Provo-Orem 15,220,159
UT Salt Lake City-West Valley
City
50,619,306
VA Richmond 30,651,495
VA Roanoke 6,650,719
VA Virginia Beach 47,686,071
WA Kennewick-Pasco 11,760,512
WA Seattle 203,708,894
WA Spokane 14,349,980
WI Appleton 7,087,751
WI Green Bay 6,401,771
WI Madison 16,775,448
WI Milwaukee 48,847,836
WV-OH-
KY
Huntington 8,058,339
Notes: Includes funding that is provided directly or suballocated
to entities in urbanized areas.
This table shows the contract authority that would be available if
the total authorization in FY2015 remained at the FY2014 level,
with no changes in distribution formulas.
Urbanized areas (UZAs) are defned by the Census Bureau, and
are based on population of a core urban cluster as well as density.
Because density is a factor in UZA defnitions, the boundaries do
not necessarily follow state, MPO, MSA, or county boundaries.
While each UZA must be represented by an MPO, the boundaries
of the MPO do not necessarily match the UZA boundaries. Also,
in some cases there is more than one MPO for a given UZA.
Sources: FHWA: “Fiscal Year 2014 Supplementary Tables, Tables
3 and 10.”
FTA: FY 2014 Apportionment Tables. (http://www.fta.dot.
gov/12853_14875.html)
Photo Credits
Page 4: CC photo by Ian Agrimis:
https://www.fickr.com/photos/ianagrimis/4043507443
Page 6: Courtesy of City of Boise and Idaho Transportation
Department.
CC photo by Derek Rust: https://www.fickr.com/photos/
drust/181587661
CC photo by Joe Penniston: https://www.fickr.com/photos/ex-
pressmonorail/2422352904
Page 7 clockwise from top left:
CC photo by the MTA: https://www.fickr.com/photos/mtapho-
tos/6069569332
CC photo by WSDOT: https://www.fickr.com/photos/ws-
dot/3837257939
CC photo by WSDOT: https://www.fickr.com/photos/ws-
dot/8670279118
CC photo by Sound Transit: https://www.fickr.com/photos/
soundtransit/13313038434
12